It really is bizarre. it seems nothing the BPHs do is ever good enough in the eyes of so many here. This seems like a decent deal. They weren't making books available at all before. Other publishers are selling at ridiculous prices that are five or six times the price for a paper copy. Others, based on what I've read, are selling with licences that expire after 26 borrowings. Twenty-five bucks for 50 borrowings seems quite reasonable. Stuff I've read from librarians say a best-seller will normally last about 50 borrowings before the paper version is too beat up to lend.

No one can make everybody content, and no one is saying that the authors are to be paid less or that electronic books are supposed to be free or cheaper than paperbooks. And I agree that 50 cent per "read" is not an unreasonable price to pay. What is unreasonable is the "expire" model.

Fair enough - ebooks lasts forever while paperbooks doesn't. This means that e-books are worth more to the library than a paperbook which needs to be replaced. It is therefore not unreasonable that the library should pay more for the ebook. But this only makes sense if the libraries are allowed to treat the ebook and the paperbook the same way. They allready have paid a premium for the ebook* in order for it to last forever, so why insist that the premium-paid-for-book must expire?

The publishers claim that they lose money if the library can lend a book forever. I claim that this is untrue. I'm not familiar with the american book market, but there are my reasons for for saying so for the Norwegian market:
1. Most books make money in their first couple of years. Then their popularity decreases, and new titles reach the market, making them yesterday's news. The book gets sold out from the publisher and difficult to get. Customers still interested in the book go to the libraries or the used book stores and buy/borrow it there. The publishers and the author doesn't get paid for this in any case.
2. Most books older than 5 years are impossible to find in bookstores. A second printing of books this old is rare. There often comes a second printing of new and popular books, but for older books a second printing is rare. The libraries or the used book stores are usually the only places to find these books in any case.
3. The market for most books more than 10 years old is very small. Best-sellers will always be in demand, and the best and most popular books can sell well after a decade. Most books won't, and disappears automatically from the market, going from rare to obscure.

The publishers will always do what maximizes their profit. That's their job to do so, and that's what authors pay them to do. That is why the publishers can't be trusted to be preservers of literature because preservation never generates any profit at all. This is why the libraries must be the counterweight and fight against them. It is the libraries job to secure our cultural heritage, and they wouldn't have done their job properly if they accepted Macmillans "expire" strategy without a fair fight.

*Even $25 for 50 lendings is a premium compared to a hardbound book that can last for at least the same number of lendings

But the money spent is gone and they have nothing to show for it.
With pbooks, libraries can resell the unpopular/excess books and recoup some value in both money and goodwill.

I believe that is a distinct American phenomena, here they just store the books that nobody borrows in a central book depository. So the end result is that an e-book will be a cheaper proposition for a library since it will just reside on their server.

Exactly. And this is one more reason that ebooks must be treated exactly the same as pbooks. There should be no difference. This is not about 'licensing' this is about a product.

And the library should all give us ponies.

Macmillan wasn't making e-books available to libraries at all. Now they are, at the cost of, perhaps, 50¢ per checkout. This is a better deal than Random House offered, and better than nothing. I don't think that turning down this offer will cause MM to make a better offer, or help customers at all.

Macmillan wasn't making e-books available to libraries at all. Now they are, at the cost of, perhaps, 50¢ per checkout. This is a better deal than Random House offered, and better than nothing. I don't think that turning down this offer will cause MM to make a better offer, or help customers at all.

I don't care. Other publisher are. And what I was pointing out is still true despite your attempt at fogging up the atmosphere.

I believe that is a distinct American phenomena, here they just store the books that nobody borrows in a central book depository. So the end result is that an e-book will be a cheaper proposition for a library since it will just reside on their server.

That is debateable: if they have to "buy" it over and over and over to keep it available the life-cycle cost will get very high very quickly.

The bone here is the *expiration*.
A pbook that costs even US$100 (an extreme case) can circulate 52 times (or more) in two years and after that remain available for a decade or more. A less popular book can likewise remain available for occasional checkout for decades--regardless of whether the publisher keeps it in print. (The university library I studied at had a Science Fiction collection donated by the nearby Air Force Base that included original editions of the LENSMEN and FOUNDATION series from the 50's that were carefully handled and prefectly usable after decades, long after the original publisher had been merged out of existence.)

With expiration, however, the less popular titles would expire and likely *not* get replaced. And, as pointed out; even the popular ebooks would only get replaced if the publisher chooses to make them available. The clear intent here is to turn the libraries into rental outlets for Macmillan.

(For the record, what the american libraries do is buy multiple copies when the books are popular and then as time goes on they sell off the extra copies to clear shelf space for new purchases. So they still keep copies of the books on the shelves. With interlibrary loan systems they don't have to keep a copy in every single library, or a warehouse, as long as the system has a few for shared checkouts.)

(For the record, what the american libraries do is buy multiple copies when the books are popular and then as time goes on they sell off the extra copies to clear shelf space for new purchases. So they still keep copies of the books on the shelves. With interlibrary loan systems they don't have to keep a copy in every single library, or a warehouse, as long as the system has a few for shared checkouts.)

My local library has informed me that due to space limitations the will be removing items from inventory. For every book, DVD, CD and audiobook that is purchased one has to be removed. They started with the science fiction books and reduced it by half. Older TV series have disappeared to make way for Hot in Cleveland.

The interlibrary loan system has been a lifesaver for sci-fi and anything else over 30 years old.
This would seem to support ebooks. They are long lasting, however, they are hampered by high IT costs either from Overdrive or in-house personnel.

I routinely go through "best of" lists from yesteryears and try to find older books I missed or meant to read when they came out. With this model, it will cost my library money to make older books available, meaning most books will fall by the wayside.

In Sweden every book published, and I believe this now includes e-books, are also deposited in national book depositories. I think there are three, the Royal Library and two national university libraries. Does American publishers have the same responsibility?

In Sweden every book published, and I believe this now includes e-books, are also deposited in national book depositories. I think there are three, the Royal Library and two national university libraries. Does American publishers have the same responsibility?

The US Copyright Office is part of the Library of Congress and copyright holders must make a "mandatory deposit" providing two copies of a works "best edition" within 3 months of publication to the Copyright Office. Foreign publications must submit at least one copy of any work they distribute in the US.

However the Library of Congress doesn't retain copies of all works IIRC. Not sure what the criteria are for what gets kept and what doesn't.

I'm seeing a lot of "damned if they do, damned if they don't." On the one hand, we've got people harumphing loudly about how this is unacceptable because e-books don't wear out so they should never, ever expire and they should certainly cost less than paper books. All kind of foot stamping because the BPHs just "don't get" this new technology and want to try to apply their outmoded thinking to it. They have to embrace the new paradigm and stop thinking like they're selling paper books. Damned.

Then we've got much tsking and tutting because they want to change the way they make their books available. Sell the right to libraries to distribute the book for a certain number of borrowings or a certain time and allow a frictionless borrowing experience to users. How dare they! Damned again.

The industry certainly needs to find new ways to do business. This deal, however, doesn't seem terribly bad. Oh, sure, some changes could be made. Allow libraries to buy multiple copies of bestsellers under this model and, after the book has been out for two years, let them buy a copy that will last 120 borrowings with no expiration date or a 10 year limit or something. There's a constructive idea right there.

Do you know what's not constructive? Screaming "Don't ever buy their books if they cost more than a dollar and have any limits on borrowings or any expiration dates."

Publishing is a business. They want to make money. The services that publishers provide are useful: they wade through slush piles, they provide editorial guidance, they produce and market the material in a saleable form. How much that is worth is certainly under discussion in the world of publishing and should be. However, it is worth something. The value in a paper book is not in the paper. That's worth a couple of bucks. Amazon and other big chains have been discounting paper books so long that many people have come to view it as their right to have every book they want for very little money. Now they want e-books for practically nothing. Fine! You don't want to pay those involved in producing these books, then go pirate them. It's easy enough to do. Just go do it and shut up. Then, when all the publishers have gone bust, and we're all up to our ears in a self-published sea of bad vampire fiction, 50 Shades knock-offs, derivative high-fantasy, and all other manner of crimes against literature, we'll know who to thank.

One thing that happens to make older books popular again is when a book in a series is released, it becomes popular. People who have not read the series want to start at the beginning to see what it's all about. But no, the eBook license has expired for the older books. You lose, the publisher loses and the author loses.

One thing that happens to make older books popular again is when a book in a series is released, it becomes popular. People who have not read the series want to start at the beginning to see what it's all about. But no, the eBook license has expired for the older books. You lose, the publisher loses and the author loses.

Like so many of the negative comments here, you're assuming that this deal is the be-all and end-all. This is the first step in a publisher that was not making e-books available to libraries now doing so. There is a future full of possibilities.

Publishers could offer earlier books in the series at a discount when the libraries buy the new one. Or buy five of the new one, get two of the earlier ones free. Or put together a library only bundle that includes all the books in one e-book for borrowing. Who knows?

What we do know is that under this new program there are now titles from Macmillan available. Titles that weren't available before. And yet, somehow, all you can see is that this is somehow worse than having no titles available.

What we do know is that under this new program there are now titles from Macmillan available. Titles that weren't available before. And yet, somehow, all you can see is that this is somehow worse than having no titles available.

That's because it is worse. If this is all Macmillan can come up with, then it's best to tell them to shove it and move on. I don't want my tax dollars squandered on such harsh restrictions.